This is a selfish and highly inaccurate reading of the future. You complain about how taxes will take things from you, but there is nothing in this complaint about how to really fix things, unless you determine that not taxing you and making you rich will save the economy. Every last assumption you make is baseless, self-serving and detrimental to a real recovery. We all have to do our part to get America back except, it seems, you. Private sector employment is not moving, because nobody wants to hire, because nobody's spending, because nobody has faith that anyone will work for the public good rather than just the rich getting richer. However, you can continue to employ like crazy because it costs you little. Most of your employees are on commission, anyway.

Frank,
I'd be interested in your reading of the future. History shows that higher taxes destroy wealth, reduce individual freedom and hurt general prosperity by redistributing resources to segments of the economy that can't justify their existance on their own merit. Adam Smith got it right back in 1776, but some won't admit how pursuit of personal happiness actually results in all boats rising.

Frank, your comments are funny, ahahahaha!

Frank is for more and highter taxes. Small business owners are not. Small business owners, which generate jobs, live in fear of the current government. They fear the mountain of debt and a government that continues to spend and increase taxes. I find it interesting that our President announced duing his Europe visit that we intend to get spending under control in about FIVE (5) YEARS. WE have got to get spending under control and reduce taxes on samll business owners.

Hi Frank, thanks for your post. Unfortunately, your comments fail to take into consideration the reality of higher taxes on the American entrepreneurial spirit. Many buiness owners I speak to suggest that they will not hire because they expect tax obligations to balloon in the coming years to make up for irresponsible spending by politicians nationwide. If spending exceeds revenue, there are only two options. The first is to reduce spending and the second is to raise revenue. Few elected officials have demonstrated the political will to reduce spending. We have seen it in New Jersey and Virginia and that's about it. In New York, spending continues to increase beyond the rate of inflation. Therefore, how could we expect anything but higher taxes. Consumers also expect higher tax obligations moving forward and that is why they have cut back spending. Small business job creation has led us out of the last 7 recessions and we need them to lead us out of this one. If we keep raising taxes on employers and employees, how is the economy expected to grow? You seem to think tax policy has no impact on the economy. If this is the case, why did Connecticut (a state you might know a little bit about) run TV commercials in NY within 24 hours of the proposed tax increase on, among others, hedge funds encouraging managers to move to CT? I know you are a "fair share" guy and, you know what, so am I. I am okay with the fact that nearly half of Americans pay virtually no federal taxes. Just dont strangle the rest of us. Before making acusations about my "doing my part", try doing a little research about what my employees and our charitable foundation do for the communities in which we work. If you do, I will be happy to provide the toothpicks with which you can pluck out the shoe leather from between your teeth.

Hi John, thanks for your post. How right you are. If the failure of the stimulus program does not validate the death of Keynesian economics I dont know what does. One trillion dollars of stimulus (after interest is added) is enough to make a dead corpse dance the tango and it has done little for our economy except increase our debt to GDP ratio to neat 100%.

Hi James, thanks for your post. Unfortunately, it is not funny as Frank is an elected official in Connecticut.

Hi Islander, ( I am actually a Ranger fan but) thanks for your post. Deficits create big problems. Most readers think I pick on Democrats but I pick on all fiscally irresponsible legislators because that is bad for the real estate market. George W. , while a Republican, was a spendaholic. GDP grew by 15% during his 8 years and spending grew by 58%. That was a horrible result. We need to encourage politicians to cut spending and release the American spirit to allow our economy to grow and to thrive.

Frank is an elected official in Connecticut?? You're right, Bob. That is not funny. Unfortunately, the vast majority of elected officials (at every level) think like he does.

Bob...I enjoy reading your column, and you sure didn't disappoint @ RealShare Chgo last month. Each point you made in the column, and subsequent posts, hit it 'outta the park. Too many who craft & implement policy today do so from idealogy, rather than from personal experience. For the most part these individuals lack any leadership, have limited experience facing critical decisions (short of a 'Yea or Nay' vote!), and fail to grasp the ramifications of their actions... Maybe these dire times will spawn a new breed of elected official, one more akin to the battle-scarred small businessman vs. the career civil servant...??? How many members of Congress have ever felt the pressures of having to meet payroll on a Friday...or have battled the banks, creditors, OSHA, EPA, or labor unions, while still keeping their businesses afloat or families fed??? ...continue to articulate your thoughts, Bob...maybe your column will motivate others to get off the fence! All the best, --Sym

.

Frank's comment just made me throw up in my mouth a little. Bob, don't ever apologize for being successful, which is what these types of people want. Just like they want the US to apologize to the world for being a super power. The fact is that if gov taxes the rich or the productive to death, we will not be better off as a whole...we will just have more poor people and less activity.

I think you should all come out of your ideological fantasy-land. Its all selfishness, because what you are saying is that "if only" you personally had to share less of a burden for our national defense, to pay the police to keep our streets safe, to have dependable mass transit, to have all those things that make the sale of real estate practical and efficient - all of this would be done properly if you made more money. So the thinking goes, you would make more money, and if you made more money, you would pay more taxes. Then, since you were making SO much money, you would have to pay less in tax, because the return would be just the same because you were making so much money! For people in the hard-nosed, realistic world of New York real estate, this is just as much fairy dust as thinking that the government owning the means of production makes any sense at all, either. All these comments are just bluster, posturing and ideological blather. Our infrastructure is failing, we have an effective 16.6% unemployment, and we've just finished 20 years of the kind of open regulatory environment you adore, and where are we? (I assume at this point you blame the Socialist-Facist-Kenyan) Tax cuts as the solution to everything is pablum for the deluded. We would sell more real estate if we cut the commission to 0.5%, will that solve problems? Only in right-wing politics is the solution to a business having no money to cut revenues. You cut expenses, to the bone if necessary. This point of view reminds me of the old line "I lose $10 per item, but I make it up on volume". Taxes are at their lowest in 60 years, by the way.

I think you should all come out of your ideological fantasy-land. Its all selfishness, because what you are saying is that "if only" you personally had to share less of a burden for our national defense, to pay the police to keep our streets safe, to have dependable mass transit, to have all those things that make the sale of real estate practical and efficient - all of this would be done properly if you made more money. So the thinking goes, you would make more money, and if you made more money, you would pay more taxes. Then, since you were making SO much money, you would have to pay less in tax, because the return would be just the same because you were making so much money! For people in the hard-nosed, realistic world of New York real estate, this is just as much fairy dust as thinking that the government owning the means of production makes any sense at all, either. All these comments are just bluster, posturing and ideological blather. Our infrastructure is failing, we have an effective 16.6% unemployment, and we've just finished 20 years of the kind of open regulatory environment you adore, and where are we? (I assume at this point you blame the Socialist-Facist-Kenyan) Tax cuts as the solution to everything is pablum for the deluded. We would sell more real estate if we cut the commission to 0.5%, will that solve problems? Only in right-wing politics is the solution to a business having no money to cut revenues. You cut expenses, to the bone if necessary. This point of view reminds me of the old line "I lose $10 per item, but I make it up on volume". Taxes are at their lowest in 60 years, by the way.

All those in industry, both for profit and not-for-profit, know intuitively and empirically, that higher tax rates have the same effect on the economy as a ship in stormy seas with her anchor fully deployed. Not only will it take twice as long to get to safe port, but also there is a good chance that the additional strain on the engines will cause them to cease up. In any capitalist economy, and specifically with regard to the current administration, raising taxes as a means of funding statist social programs, in essence redistributive economics from the rich to the poor, invariably results in income generation of sum to zero. What the government takes away in higher taxes from those corporations and individuals who are the major contributors to the production base is not replaced by additional production and, hence, does not increase employment.

It is clear that Frank F is either a politician or some sort of tenured employee, who is more comfortable with ideological wishful thinking than basic economic principles. Politicians are in the business of getting reelected (at any and all costs...especially other peoples costs) and tenured employees are in the business of either minimal output or getting people to believe in their sole point of view.

The current administration's policy of raising taxes to fund all the new social spending programs may have some short term benefits, but in the not too distant future will only result in greater harm to the entire economy. Kicking the debt down the road does not solve the problem. As Margaret Thatcher so eloquently phrased it, "the problem with socialism is that you always run out of other peoples money." Like it or not Frank, raising taxes on the haves (and many of the 'wish we had' middle class as well) for redistribution to the poor, is socialist.

Now that the administration has tapped-out their fiscal stimulus capacity (with very mixed results...maybe a C grade at best) and a substantial amount of more money is needed to both prime the economy, fund all these politically inspired programs and bail out California, Illinois, Michigan, New York et al, the only pocket left to tap is the general populace in the form of higher taxes. History is replete with the wreckage of empires, countries and governments that have taxed away their futures.

And just for the record Frank, employing commission-based workers does not cost little....desks, telephones, electricity, office space, training and, oh yes, mandated health insurance and processing all that regulatory paper work ends up costing a lot of money.
Employees do not hire (additional) personnel as a means of contributing to the public good. They do it to make money.

Bob Knakal is absolutely spot on target: No jobs, no certainty, no recovery. Higher taxes, less profits, less jobs. The way to get America back on track is to create opportunity not welfare: to offer incentive and profit. Who wants to work like a dog just to see all the fruits of their labors taken out of their pocket by a high-taxing government? Imagine the effect of a one-year nationwide across the board tax holiday: now that is a job-producing stimulus that would turbo charge an economic recovery!

Frank, last time I checked this was not a political forum so I will keep this brief. As far as an ideological fantasy-land, YOUR ideology is significantly flawed on one ridiculous assumption. And it's your thinking that higher taxes result in a productive ROI of from that extra money. More importantly from a macroeconomic standpoint, Bob is right...that doesn't make anyone selfish. Less taxes

I got cut off for some reason.
Less taxes

equals more deals equals more overall tax revenue to do our part....I'm getting censored!

The government needs to spend more here at home, not less. Deflation is the real enemy and we are on the verge of a deflationary spiral now. That spiral is beyond the control of government monetary policy once it picks up speed. If new taxes allow the government to spend money in our domestic economy, jobs will be the result, not higher welfare rolls. We need to throw off conventional thinking that taxes are anti-business, anti-job growth, because it really depends on where those tax dollars go. Spend more, tax more, stimulate more, until we get over the hump and business starts hiring again for legitimate reasons. If it isn't done now unemployment will ghet far worse and you will end up with the taxes and the spending anyway but find yourself in a much deeper hole. As more people are hired and paying taxes the government should be able to back down on both taxes and spending.

There is a lot of faulty reasoning going around about government spending. Not all tax dollars are spent on static social welfare programs that are non-productive. The government could raise tax revenues and spend on infrastructure projects that improve transportation and communications, or on incentive programs for alternative energy, medical research, IT projects, the development of univerally useful information data bases that all businesses could benefut from, etc. We could be building a rapid train system like they have in Spain. All of these expenditure create jobs, but more importantly they create enhanced opportunity for the future and over the long haul would give the American people a significant return on their investment.
Thinking that small government will spend less and tax less is like arguing that short people eat less. It all depends on where those dollars go and who is setting priorites

Bob, It is frustrating is to read the he said/she said nature of the comments and replay this a thousand times on the national stage. In its simplest form, I believe that the overarching theme is that there are two primary views of government: liberal-that government has the ability to be more effective and efficient than individuals in making decisions and allocating resources and thus has a right and a duty to do so or conservative-that the individual trumps that of the government in making resource decisions and therefore, the role of the government should be limited. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see politicians act as adults and have an honest factual debate on these issues. At the margins the issues can get cloudy and judgmental but the baseline issues are pretty clear from my perspective. Makes me yearn for William Buckley.

It seems to be a concept of division, whereby if one group loses the other wins. Damn, those CEOs! History shows we do better together and do worse separately.

David, I consider myself more Liberal than Conservative. I don't see government as more effective or efficient at making decisions or allocating resources than individuals. I see government as the peoples last recourse to effect change where they would be ineffective and inefficient if they acted as individuals. For instance recently many people have advocated a boycott of BP to protest the oil spill and force the company to pay for the damages. I know that approach won't work. What did happen, the government securing a $20 Billion fund from BP, in my view was a completely appropriate role for government to play. And yet I see many conservatives were upset by that. There are dozens of other situations where individuals, even large groups of individuals, cannot effect meaningful change when and where it is needed. That's when we need government to step in, we as individuals cannot regulated industries that if unregulated will do harm to us or the environment, There are many consumer situations where people need the protection of the government. I see the Government as the people's greatest advocate, a role I hope they will expand on.

'I see the Government as the people's greatest advocate, a role I hope they will expand on.'
Perhaps you should brush up on your history to see just how ridiculous of a statement this is.

Cpalmer, Then why have a government at all? Is that what you are suggesting? A government "by the people and for the people" is just another shallow and meaningless phrase in the face of callous discontent? Just what history would you like to review, the government that freed the slaves, the government that won two world wars against fascism, the government that hauled the country out of a depression, the government that provides social security and medical care to millions, the government that built an interstate highway system, the government that brought down communism, or is it the government that created more opportunbity for individuals than any in history, is that the government that is not its peoples' greatest advocate? If not the government than who?

'Then why have a government at all?' Nowhere did I suggest anarchy. Government most certainly has a role in our lives and the free markets, at the local, state, and federal level. 'The government that freed the slaves.' No, social changes and people sacrificing their lives freed the slaves. Before then, it was the government who allowed slavery in the first place. 'The government that won two world wars against fascism.' Similar answer as above. It was the sacrifice made by millions to stand up for what was right (fighting against tyrannical governments) that defeated fascism. 'The government that hauled the country out of a depression.' No, it was the government that prolonged the depression. There have been many books written on the subject, but here's a good article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848.html 'The government that provides social security and medical care to millions.' Yes, and SS and Medicare are a combined $107 trillion (yes, with a T) in the hole with unfunded liabilities. They are unsustainable. 'The government that built an interstate highway system.' I'll give you that one. 'The government that brought down communism.' No, communism brought down communism. It is an unsustainable system bound for failure. Massive spending by our government might have forced them to spend more to keep up and thus speed up their failure, but it was inevitable either way. 'Is it the government that created more opportunbity for individuals than any in history, is that the government that is not its peoples' greatest advocate?' If used property, government is merely the agent used to preserve our freedom, which is the greatest advocate to opportunity for humans.

I read this week that the rich in Pakistan pay virtually no taxes. According to Reagan based economic theory Pakistan should be booming with no unemployment. Could there be a flaw in supply side economics?

cpalmer, Its is the rampant cynicism and anti government speech that I find ridiculous, Why? Because, We are the Government. Many would rather rail against the government, advocate destroying its many functions in our lives instead of finding ways to make it work better. Many individuals made sacrifices in the conflicts that you mentioned, but the government organized the war effort, directed resources, mobilized a country, things that would not have happened if we all viewed ourselves as islands making our own decisions. While communism failed in Eastern Europe and Russia primarily due to the oppression of its own people, it has been the path to progress in China. Why? because in Eastern Europe communism failed to advocate for its people and instead let corrupt individuals take over. In China, overall the communist have delivered for their people, which is very evident to them by virture of their progress as a nation. They are well on the path to becoming the world's preeminent super power.
There is a paradigm shift occuring in America now. I think this new direction has inevidability written all over it and it has nothing to do with political ideology. Ideology does not solve problems. One of Americas great strenghts throughout history has been our ability to find pragmatic solutions to our problems irrespective of the ideology those solutions may represent. In fact those who promote one ideology over another are usually in the way of solving problems, as they are now. America instead solves the problem in real ways first and then lets others worry about the ideology the solution represents, if it even matters at that point.

James M: I agree with you, but you are wasting your time trying to have a constructive debate with the Ayn Rand types. Their economic theory is a religion to them, and the fact that it is not working has no meaning. I have been in the real estate business since 1979. I have watched the S&Ls collapse under Reagan and the banks (and nearly the whole world) collapse under Bush. In my mind, supply side laizze faire economics is a very bad joke. We passed many reforms after the great depression, and we did so for a reason. Over time we forgot these reasons and we are suffering because of our poor memories.

'Many would rather rail against the government, advocate destroying its many functions in our lives instead of finding ways to make it work better. Many individuals made sacrifices in the conflicts that you mentioned, but the government organized the war effort, directed resources, mobilized a country, things that would not have happened if we all viewed ourselves as islands making our own decisions.' This is true. It was certainly a combined effort. 'While communism failed in Eastern Europe and Russia primarily due to the oppression of its own people, it has been the path to progress in China. Why? because in Eastern Europe communism failed to advocate for its people and instead let corrupt individuals take over. In China, overall the communist have delivered for their people, which is very evident to them by virture of their progress as a nation. They are well on the path to becoming the world's preeminent super power.' This is ridiculous. Communism resulted in the deaths (according to some estimates) 70 million Chinese. The installation of (somewhat) free markets is what has allowed China's economy to grow. However, the vast majority of Chinese citizens still live in desolate poverty.

Jim, Your entire argument is one of the straw man fallacy and therefore not worthy of even addressing. As I've already indicated, no one here has advocated anarcho-capitalism, which is what you described.

cpalmer, So the collapse of the S&L and the collapse under Bush were not related to a lack of financial regulation and oversite of the banks and S&Ls. I was there during the S&L heyday and I know several guys who went to jail in the late 80's. Given a chance, there are folks out there who will steal you blind. Reagan and Bush gave these dudes more than a chance. I suggest that you give some consideration to the fact that Bush Senior was right when he called Reaganomics "voodoo economics". It sure hasn't worked very well, has it?

I managed a regional development company thru the hey day and then collapse of the S&L Industry. Those events stand now as precursors to recent events of far greater magnitude. Both events followed a period of aggressive deregulation and a stated policy from Washington that more deregulation was coming. S&L deregulation created a flood of new and "stupid" capital for the Real Estate industry to use in both debt and equity. The smart and greedy took full advantage of that new capital putting it into the position of greatest risk. In 86 new tax laws were enacted which disincentivised private equity from entering or staying in the market. Private Equity withdrew and left the "lender/partners", the government insured S&L industry, holding the bag.
I long ago came to the conclusion that it is far cheaper to pay for reasonable balanced regulation and enforcement than it is to suffer the consequences of thoughtless and irrational deregulation. Such regulation tends to keep markets performing on an even flow basis, something the greedy quickly become impatient with and so work very hard to overcome.

James M: Exactly right. I remember the days of brokered deposits and hot money flooding the S&Ls. This money, insured by the FSLIC, was then loaned for a hefty fee to anyone who could fog up a mirror. The boom followed by a huge bust funded by the tax payers. The latest bust was the same story magnified by a factor of 1,000.

James M: Exactly right. I remember the days of brokered deposits and hot money flooding the S&Ls. This money, insured by the FSLIC, was then loaned for a hefty fee to anyone who could fog up a mirror. The boom followed by a huge bust funded by the tax payers. The latest bust was the same story magnified by a factor of 1,000.